About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
this country, religious up and down this country who believe that the obama administration rightly has leveled a direct attack on their ability to be catholic. that is not going to pass unnoticed in states like ohio, michigan, pennsylvania where the catholic vote is huge and motivated and not happy with president obama. secondly, that chick-fil-a story , this has just begun to roll out, but everyone already knows about it. .. >> the third story i asked about was the 1.5% gdp growth, the horrible growth number, and, again, less than half a percent. the chick-fil-a story was just a day ole. everybody heard about chick-fil-a. it was one of those stories that moves by social media, by e-mail, by tfn, and conversation about the church peat owe, in a group like this, or your friends, and it outrages people. it outrages even supporters of same-sex marriage. it outrages, as i had on the radio show today, gay people. they don't want people bullied over their religious faith, and when rahm tries to beat up the keys of chick-fil-a or the mayor of boston or san fransisco, those are democrat friends of the
is spending all of its time besides voting to repeal obamacare, trying to investigate the obama administration, and this is exactly what would be predicted. so what we have been is separation of party some, not really separation of powers. we have unified government. we don't have oversight. and what we need to address is how we get the benefit of oversight that we do get when we have divided government without paying the immense cost which is the near impossibility that we in our time now pass responsible legislation. >> i just have a question. the amendment process. our constitution, some of the mark and a big like the fact that i can vote. and that i dislike the fact that i can vote, the fact that black people and no wonder considered property. i don't know if they actually even succeed to see how it's even -- it didn't really change. and the constitution, and amendment process, even a good thing we always have to look over the whole document to see how changes to be made. >> the united states constitution is the most in the known world. all of the state constitutions are easier to amend th
against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision that stunned many people, but no one more than me, john roberts reached for a subsidiary argument that had only been upended, had only been mentioned in passing in both the supreme court and even the lower courts and he said the individual mandate was a permissible use of taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause, and thus the law would be upheld. subquestion finally anticipate why, why did roberts do that? and i think there were three main reasons. one is, i think you have to take his opinion at face value. eastham thought it was a legitimate use of the taxing power. i think the second and th
government grew during the bush and administration and during the obama administration 1.7%. i agree it is too big bet you put it in the wrong era. we both know of entrepreneurs who have been very successful but but who built the road who built the highways and it is basic six common-sense people understand people come into the state with no government at all. then don't drive on the highway. businesses need the educated work force granted, it is public-private partnership
be the point that the obama administration defends the defense of marriage act and president romney will defend the constitutionality, but it doesn't seem that social conservative question has a lot of allotted salience in some unlike a presidential debate. so i think other than health care i see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here is why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans during the 90s for a while were seen some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls. don't do it anymore and the democrats, john kerry and the early 90s, joe lieberman in the early 90s and others said maybe it is time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that is all gone. i've spoken to republican politicians, why is that? the answer is we get so if we ever raise their voices against affirmative action it is just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. part of it ironically was an incredibly bitter campaign in calif
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
, more manufacturing jobs in china and the obama administration's responding. is that a fair fight? is that a fair issue? >> guest: you know, china has to live up to its obligations under the world trade organization like anyone else, but, you know, here we in the mall, washington monument there, white house there, constitution avenue. when you see the chinese feeling what really is of value, it's hiding in plain sight, the declaration of independence and the bill of rights, then you should start to worry, but if they cheat here and there, they take the next thing we produce because we have that incredible foundation here of rule of law, protection of property, and a wonderful society that spins off innovation. >> host: michael, do you foresee china becoming the world's largest economy, and is that a bad thing? >> guest: it's not a bad thing for china to become the world's largest economy, and if things go well in china as they may or may not, that probably happens in the next decade or two, but bear in mind that china has so many people that the per capita income in china will sti
and those are two big issues that the obama administration have focused on for failing, for fixing failing schools and that will lead to a focus on -- and how to improve their teacher workforce. the romney campaign has signaled interest in improving schools as well through a different avenue by promoting more choice and vouchers for parents but neither side i would argue is recognizing that those reforms, that those are ever put in place, will be far less successful with children are given a poor foundation in the first place. if kids are growing up in impoverished conditions and have little access to the rich curiosity driven conversations we are talking about that they need in those younger years, that those reforms are not going to go anywhere or amount to anything until we start getting serious about the topics we are talking about today. .. wouldn't be smarter to be using those investments to be kind of front loading making sure that we are setting these children not to succeed in the first place. the third 1i want to mention is family values strengthening family life. this is an issu
years of the obama administration from only 1.5%. i agree that the federal government is too vague, big, but i think you are laying that in the wrong era. what i believe is that small businesses do go from entrepreneurial spirit. there is no question. we have been very successful. but even as we started telling that story, who built the roads and bridges and highways. practical people, commonsense new common sense new hampshire voters understand that we have had these states come in and they don't want any government at all. don't drive on the highways. it is the reality -- the reality is an educated workforce that is primarily from the public schools, the public university, from the technical colleges, public and private partnership. that is what i spent my career doing. bringing people together. the nonprofit communities and to give sense that it's necessary to have legislation, often it is not. the two projects that i like to work on are the medication bridge program in the college savings program. neither of those required any government expenditures. not a single tax dollar. and it
there are a lot of folks that believe gosh, we need more rigorous immigration enforcement. that's why the obama administration embraced the. it's about how all these things represent and what are you obligate to say when you're pinned down. do you believe in enforcing these laws, or not? the thing is when you say, the whole idea of the dream act is that well, these are the good kids. let's attack the interest of the good kids. advocates will say, i think there are, it doesn't mean you're a bad kid if you're in community college or it may be got in trouble if you're a teenager and your criminal record, it doesn't make you a bad person and i think there's something very disingenuous about the debate. that's of course advocates want to structure the debate in a certain way. i don't know how much of this is rooted in any kind of beliefs prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i do think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageously which is their job. >> thank you. >> just a couple more questions and then we'll have to cut it off. so maybe back there. and
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
about the specifics. you even have a case where the congress and the obama administration slowed the growth of medicare spending by $700 billion, and they're being attacked by republicans for having done that. so, in an environment where you can't talk about medicare, in an environment where no one will talk about base broadeners, everyone talks about loophole closers, how do you, how do you get from here to there? and let me ask doug, first, you said that the environment will be different in 2013. other than this pressure you talked about pro the rating agencies what will get these guys singing kumbayah with each other? >> they're not going to sing kumbayah. i don't want to pretend that they will. this environment is the worst but this would be the right time to fix the fiscal cliff so we don't have to worry about the economics. not happening. lame duck would be the second worst. and for all the reasons i outlined i think it is very unlikely we'll do anything real significant. do the little bit you can to avoid damage and get to next year where, i think they're going to be outsi
obama has accused china of exports. as the administration done enough to protect business against unfair trade practices from china? >> they can do more. i am glad they jumped in on the issue about the tires and the issue about the cards. i am concerned about new hampshire losing 16,000 jobs and i think congressman bass is on record with the special trade status for china that is very threatening. dirksen senate office build >> the trade vote is one that is over a decade ago and it is important because it assures the great success china plays by our rules and not the other way around but i do agree such issues as currency debate ought to be resolved and i condemn this administration of doing virtually nothing proactive to deal with the issue of china competition. >> the postal service is losing $50 million a day and proposed cutting saturday service. bass: i break with my republican colleagues. a miscalculation by the office of personnel management on their retirement contribution but once you take that issue and put it aside which they should do we still have a postal service running at
and democratic administrations. i think it's unfair to level such a criticism in president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country as president bush was. and i think both presidents, since 9/11, have put security of the american people, our homeland security as job number one as they should. and they have both been strong in the area. it's unfair to assert that president obama has let down the guard. libya was a triple tragic event. he died two weeks ago today along with the three of the colleagues. the responsibility for guarding our embassy overseas is not the -- we don't have american military protecting our embassy. it's the host country that provides the perimeter security around the diplomatic security. we provide the security for the foreign embassies in new york city. who let us down in cairo? it was the egyptian government. that's why the crowd went over the wall and put down the american flag and putted it up. it was the libyan security forces who let us down in benghazi when ambassador stevens was killed. i don't think it's appropriate to somehow blame th
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15